Multiprotocol medical imaging communication through the Internet is more flexible than the tight DICOM transfers. This paper introduces a modular multiprotocol teleradiology architecture that integrates DICOM and common Internet services (based on web, FTP, and E-mail) into a unique operational domain. The extended WADO service (a web extension of DICOM) and the other proposed services allow access to all levels of the DICOM information hierarchy as opposed to solely Object level. A lightweight client site is considered adequate, because the server site of the architecture provides clients with service interfaces through the web as well as invulnerable space for temporary storage, called as User Domains, so that users fulfill their applications' tasks. The proposed teleradiology architecture is pilot implemented using mainly Java-based technologies and is evaluated by engineers in collaboration with doctors. The new architecture ensures flexibility in access, user mobility, and enhanced data security. 1. Introduction Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) network protocols are widely used for reviewing images and performing primary diagnosis within radiology and other imaging departments, by means of Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). DICOM, which is the communication standard for medical imaging, is also applied in teleradiology cases, where the transfer of patient radiological images from one location to another for the purposes of interpretation and/or consultation is performed. In teleradiology, professionals belonging to different departments of the hospital (internal professionals) or professionals at home (external professionals) communicate with the radiology department. In these cases [1], DICOM network protocols are less frequently used to share DICOM Objects for diagnostic purposes, especially between hospital departments and external professionals. Image communication is not performed strictly for diagnosis only but also for educational, scientific, and other co-operational activities of external professionals. In these activities, they have lower expectations of image quality and reliability [1]. They desire more flexible applications, which can be integrated with their other desktop applications and less centralized system setup and configuration. This paper focuses on teleradiology performed by external professionals through the Internet. DICOM Supplement 54 (DICOM-E-mail) [1] suggests a connection between the Internet and hospital medical communication. In [2], an example of DICOM protocols’ vendor-specific
References
[1]
Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM), Supplement 54: DICOM MIME Type, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2002, ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/Final/sup54_ft.pdf.
[2]
M. Walz, C. Brill, R. Bolte et al., “Teleradiology requirements and aims in Germany and Europe: status at the beginning of 2000,” European Radiology, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1472–1482, 2000.
[3]
G. Weisser, M. Walz, S. Ruggiero, A. Runa, C. K？ster, and C. Düber, “Emergency teleradiology using Dicom-e-mail: security and technical aspects in a setting with 17 hospitals,” International Congress Series, vol. 1268, pp. 271–273, 2004.
[4]
G. Weisser, U. Engelmann, S. Ruggiero et al., “Teleradiology applications with DICOM-e-mail,” European Radiology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1331–1340, 2007.
[5]
G. Weisser, M. Walz, S. Ruggiero et al., “Standardization of teleradiology using Dicom-e-mail: recommendations of the German Radiology Society,” European Radiology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 753–758, 2006.
[6]
B. Lienemann, J. Hodler, M. Luetolf, and C. W. A. Pfirrmann, “Swiss teleradiology survey: present situation and future trends,” European Radiology, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2157–2162, 2005.
[7]
U. Engelmann, H. Münch, A. Schr？ter, and H. P. Meinzer, “The last 10 years of evolution in teleradiology: an overview of concepts and approaches of CHILI,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 2, supplement 1, pp. S315–S316, 2007.
[8]
E. H. Shortliffe, “The next generation Internet and health care: a civics lesson for the informatics community,” in Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, pp. 8–14, Orlando, Fla, USA, 1998.
[9]
K. Siau, “Health care informatics,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2003.
[10]
F. K. Mathiesen, “WEB technology—the future of teleradiology?” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 87–90, 2001.
[11]
J. Zhang, J. Sun, and J. N. Stahl, “PACS and Web-based image distribution and display,” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, vol. 27, no. 2-3, pp. 197–206, 2003.
[12]
J. Fernàndez-Bayó, O. Barbero, C. Rubies, M. Sentís, and L. Donoso, “Distributing medical images with internet technologies: a DICOM Web server and a DICOM Java viewer,” Radiographics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 581–590, 2000.
[13]
Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM), Part 18: Web Access to DICOM Persistent Objects (WADO), National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008, ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/2009/09_18pu.pdf.
[14]
G. V. Koutelakis and D. K. Lymberopoulos, “WADA service: an extension of DICOM WADO service,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 121–130, 2009.
[15]
X. Cao and H. K. Huang, “Current status and future advances of digital radiography and PACS,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 80–88, 2000.
[16]
H. K. Huang, PACS: Basic Principles and Applications, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[17]
Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM), Part 4: Service Class Specifications, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008, ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/2009/09_04pu.pdf.
[18]
Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM), Part 7: Message Exchange, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2008, ftp://medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Dicom/2009/09_07pu2.pdf.
[19]
G. Koutelakis, G. Mandellos, G. Triantafyllou, M. Koukias, P. Dimopoulos, and D. Lymperopoulos, “A new PACS-Viewer eliminates an archiving model problem of the DICOM standard,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Communication Systems, Networks and Digital Signal Processing, pp. 224–227, Patras, Greece, 2006.
[20]
S. M. Moore, A. S. Gokhale, and D. A. Beecher, “CTN user’s guide to demonstration applications,” in CTN Documents, 1998, http://erl.wustl.edu/documents/ctn/users-guide.pdf.
[21]
ebXML Registry Services and Protocols–Version 3.0, in Oasis Standards, 2005, http://docs.oasis-open.org/regrep/v3.0/specs/regrep-rs-3.0-os.pdf.
[22]
Profiles for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0, in Oasis Standards, 2005, http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-profiles-2.0-os.pdf.
[23]
IHE Radiology Technical Framework Supplement 2005-2006–Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing for Imaging (XDS-I)–Trial Implementation Version, in IHE Standards, 2005, http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/upload/IHE_RAD-TF_Suppl_XDSI_TI_2005-08-15.pdf.
[24]
M. Eichelberg, T. Aden, J. Riesmeier, A. Dogac, and G. B. Laleci, “A survey and analysis of electronic healthcare record standards,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 277–315, 2005.
[25]
ARTEMIS Deliverable D5.1.1: Relevant electronic healthcare record standards and protocols for accessing medical information, Artemis Consortium, 2004, http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/projects/artemis/.
